The following is an opinion piece by PTCBR committee member Amy Jelacic. If you are interested in writing for the PTCBR website on ACT public transports topics, please get in touch.
Extending Canberra’s hugely successful light rail line from its current terminus at Civic down to Woden is proving to be an extremely difficult task.
The project has been underway in some form for over seven years, but everything from engineering challenges, to a rehash of route details, to an obvious lack of political will at the top of the ACT government is getting in the way of getting it done. The first part of the project – Stage 2A – will extend the line from Alinga St to Commonwealth Park and is due to be operational by early 2028. Commonwealth Park to Woden – Stage 2B – currently has a construction completion date in far-off 2033, fourteen years since the opening of Stage 1 from Gungahlin to Civic.
To be sure, this is a genuinely complex undertaking. The route to Woden sits across land that is controlled by different bodies at different points, operating under different legislation at the territory and federal level. This means an approvals process unprecedented among infrastructure projects in the ACT: sign-off is needed from the federal Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, the National Capital Authority, and the Parliament of Australia, and from the ACT Government’s Environment, Planning and Sustainable Development Directorate, as well as the ACT cabinet. The documentation required by these bodies is considerable – as is the time needed to assess it. The ACT Government’s estimate for the entire approvals process is three years.
The collective failure of stakeholders to come together and find a quicker, simpler path through this process is disappointing. The general public has little visibility or understanding of this dense stakeholder environment and can only wonder why such an important city-shaping project has been allowed to sit in limbo for so long. We know future estimates for considerable population growth in Canberra and associated traffic levels; we know private transport is the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the ACT; we know our current transport infrastructure is inadequate and unattractive for residents and tourists alike. Where is the urgency in addressing these issues? It’s difficult to see much from the territory or federal governments, who seem content to let this project move at a glacial pace.
How has this situation come about? It’s fundamentally due to the way land is administered in central Canberra. Large areas, including the National Triangle, are controlled and protected by legislation that requires federal approval for development and alterations to the physical environment in order to preserve existing landscapes, vistas, and buildings that are heritage listed. These heritage listings are focused on Canberra as a historically significant place and as the seat of national government, and unconcerned with the context in which these listed items exist.
Decisions made about land use in the centre of Canberra are thus made as though the National Triangle is an insulated zone that exists separately to the rest of the city. Public transport routes, footpaths, bike lanes, and car parking facilities are provided – or not – without any obvious overarching strategy or integration with the ACT Government’s efforts in other parts of the city. The result is that this central part of Canberra is suited to car travel and little else. Transport and planning decisions in this area are made with the goal of conservation and without any sense of contributing to a holistically coherent and functional city, and all of Canberra suffers as a result.
The inability to meaningfully advance light rail Stage 2 is a particularly egregious example of this disconnected decision-making. The project has already been split into parts A and B to allow the northern section that requires fewer approvals to get underway – yet the longer southern section remains caught up in the maze of approvals.
At the heart of this bureaucratic mess sits a fundamental tension between the natural growth and maturation of a city, and the desire to preserve a city’s built heritage.
Heritage reports produced as part of the light rail Stage 2B approvals documentation show us, firstly, the sheer amount of work required to comply with heritage requirements, and secondly, the thin basis on which many heritage listings rest. A prime example of the latter is the “Parliament House Vista”, a Commonwealth heritage-listed feature that will be impacted by light rail and must be considered by the project team. The listing tells us that it is “strongly associated with the history of politics and government in Australia and the development of Canberra as the Australian National Capital” and has “high aesthetic significance due to the visual impact of the extensive open sweeping vista along the land axis that can be experienced in two directions”. The listing also designates the “symmetrical characteristics of the road networks” as historically important, and describes the vista’s “strong and special associations with the broad Australian community because of its social values as a symbol of Australia and the Federal Government.”
Strong association with the “history of politics and government in Australia” sounds like a solid reason for heritage listing and protection – but let’s examine what’s being said here. What does our political history have to do with a particular view of buildings, lawns, and roads? Did that view exert some special influence on the minds and actions of Menzies, Hawke, or Keating? How about the “symmetrical characteristics” of the road network around Parliament House – is that a feature really, truly worth protecting by heritage listing? And how are “strong and special associations with the broad Australian community” measured and demonstrated?
Many heritage listings, at both the national and state level, rest in part on these sorts of questionable propositions. When associated regulations and protections have such a profound impact on how we are able to meet future challenges in our cities and towns, it’s vital that they rest on a robust base. Preserving our built history is important, but it exists in a living context and we must recognise this. Did the visionaries of the past really imagine future citizens would stop building and innovating around their creations?
The bold spirit that gave us Australia’s beautiful and innovative permanent Parliament House – a building that feels striking and fresh to this day – has been forgotten. Instead of growing and changing with the rest of the city, the core of Canberra has been frozen. A place that should be the beating heart of the nation is instead harsh, hard to access, and devoid of personality. To what end? Who is this for? Not national and international visitors, who struggle to navigate an unwelcoming environment that’s poorly served by public transport and hostile to pedestrians. Not residents, who are forced into car dependency to get to jobs in the National Triangle and must put up with traffic chaos every time a major event is held there.
The only people this preservation effort evidently serves are those who are still fascinated by a mid-twentieth century vision for Canberra inspired by the road-building sprees that shaped US cities at the time – ideas that we can surely leave behind now.
In contrast to Canberra, many globally-renowned capital cities have lively central areas with excellent public transport to key government and historical locations. In Rome, you can catch a metro train, tram, or bus right to the Colosseum. In Washington D.C., a bus or metro will drop you at the Capitol Building or the White House. In London, multiple bus routes and a tube line will take you directly to Westminster Abbey and the Houses of Parliament. The accessibility of so many significant places enhances their value and presence in our lives, and there’s no suggestion that the presence of transport networks negatively impacts on the significance of any of these buildings and precincts.
Canberra doesn’t need to copy what other places do – but we do need to have a reckoning about the type of city we have created and the type of city we want. Should we remain stuck with a sterile, car-centric vision of Canberra – a relic of outdated thinking from last century and a perversion of the Griffins’ original plans? Is it right for our Parliament House to sit removed from the people of Australia by wide arterial roads? Or do we desire a capital city that is opened up and connected by high-quality and inclusive transport options, that embraces the future, and that says to the people of Australia, “You belong in this city, and this city belongs to you”?
It’s not clear who, if anyone, is thinking about these questions. The territory government’s vision for Canberra is mostly focused on the operational issues of running a small city. The federal government has limited collective interest in its capital, though the work of Canberra MP Alicia Payne to boost the city’s profile is impressive and commendable. The National Capital Authority takes a conservative stance on administering the areas under its remit, while occasionally advancing out-of-touch initiatives like seaplane services or floating saunas on Lake Burley Griffin. Think tanks and community groups can produce interesting ideas but lack influence and amplification.
Canberra needs a new vision for the future that encompasses the entire city and advances it as a whole, respecting our built and natural environment while creating the infrastructure we need to continue growing and providing for residents and visitors. It will need support from both the ACT and federal governments. It will require significant legislative review and reform. It could take years to achieve – but we can begin down that path right now by recognising the enormous potential of light rail to transform the city for the better and delivering it quickly.